Kerry's got Vet problems other than the swift kind. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48884-2004Sep24?language=printer -- washingtonpost.com Kerry's Unlikely Detractors By Colbert I. King Saturday, September 25, 2004 Those who dismiss critics of John Kerry's Vietnam service as just a bunch of right-wing Republicans out to advance George W. Bush's cause don't know what they are talking about -- or they are engaged in wishful thinking. Okay, I may have once thought that about the critics, too. But after poring over the large volume of e-mail I received after my Aug. 28 column, "What Matters About Kerry and Vietnam," I don't any longer. I had taken to task the authors of the blistering anti-Kerry bestseller "Unfit for Command" for giving readers an unbalanced view of Kerry's service in Vietnam, and for not revealing their own connections with the Bush campaign and the sources of their financial support. The column also criticized "Unfit for Command" for smearing Kerry, a decorated former naval officer, as disloyal because of his antiwar activities. Writing as a former Army officer, I concluded: "Speaking for myself, it is enough that he served." A number of readers agreed with that conclusion. Many more, however, most of them angry veterans, did not. Most striking was the fact that those who identified themselves seemed to span the political spectrum, with one even describing himself as a Howard Dean Democrat. Two weeks later, another e-mail arrived on the same topic. It was from a Howard University classmate, a friend of 47 years, former assistant secretary of the Air Force Rodney Coleman. A Democrat, Coleman has local roots, having worked for the D.C. Council and later the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corp. Bill Clinton appointed Coleman to the Pentagon post, in which he served from 1994 to 1998. Somehow, despite our running into each other over the years at various social occasions, Vietnam was never a serious topic of conversation between us. Until now. Coleman, who served in Vietnam for 13 months in 1971-72, wrote that he found disheartening the protracted mudslinging between Bush and Kerry and their respective camps about military records. But the favorable conclusion I drew about Kerry's service was, he stated, "with all due respect, not mine!" "Some of those 58,000 who died [in Vietnam] were at DaNang with me, and some were under my command, in the 366th Air Force engineering squadron," Coleman wrote. Then he got to the heart of the matter. "I vividly recall Kerry's antiwar testimony in April 1971. I was a White House fellow at the time, on a leave of absence from active duty, as were five of the 17 fellows selected. Two of them had Vietnam experience with Silver and Bronze Stars and Purple Hearts awarded for their heroism. In early April 1971, I volunteered to go to Vietnam after my year as a White House fellow. I could have very easily taken steps to forgo a tour in 'Nam, but as an Air Force captain committed to the ideals of the oath of office I took, Vietnam was the only game in town." The oath of office was a serious matter for products of Howard's ROTC programs. I know. I was commissioned in the Army; Coleman joined the Air Force. Unlike some college campuses, Howard's ROTC programs were a source of pride, having produced, according to the school, more African American general officers than any other university in the country. "When Kerry made those critical statements of the war," Coleman wrote, "my parents, God bless them, went ballistic about their son going in harm's way. My military colleagues in the fellows program who had been there and were shot up were incensed that a so-called military man would engage in such insubordinate actions. At the time Kerry made those unfortunate remarks, America had POWs and MIAs, among them my friend, Colonel Fred Cherry, the longest-held black POW of the Vietnam War. How could a true American fighting man throw away his medals, while thousands he fought alongside of were in the midst of another example of man's inhumanity to man?" I spoke with Coleman this week about citing his e-mail in a column. He agreed, adding that he was still wrestling with his Election Day decision. His final written words are worth remembering, especially by those in the Kerry high command. "I served my 13 months in combat. Returned in 1972 with the Bronze Star and the Vietnamese Technical Services Honor Medal to a very anti-Vietnam America. [Harry] "Butch" Robinson, Denny [Dennis] Hightower, and many more that you know did the same. We endured the pain of separation from our loved ones, were frightened when the rockets came in to camp and lives were lost. But we were never unfit for command. "Kerry still hasn't satisfied me and many others. . . . It's September and I'm still conflicted. Speaking for myself, it is NOT enough that he served!" Those aren't the thoughts of a Republican-funded, right-wing, over-the-top Swift boat veteran. Ignore them, Kerry camp, at your peril.
It's funny that the Swifties thought that Kerry betrayed them with his postwar conduct, yet now 30 years later they are the ones that are dividing veterans.
Yes. What I said isn't 100% commenting on the article but it is related. I wasn't saying that the only vets angry at Kerry are the swifties, just that many of the others that are angry wouldn't be so if it wasn't for the swifties.
to say that vets are angry at kerry because of what the swiftvets said is non-sensical. the only reason the swiftvets comments have any traction is because of what kerry said when he got back from vietnam, and how he's based his entire candidacy on on his four months there. by all means, continue living in the liberal media cocoon, but until you examine kerry's problems honestly, you'll have no hope of offering a meaningful rebuttal to his critics.
Actually I've been critical of Kerry for a long time when it comes to Iraq, and I'm still critical of him for his vote. I even believed the right wing spin that Kerry had been flip flopping on Iraq, until recently when other investigations and a look at Kerry's own words at the time of his vote showed that he's been remarkably consistent regarding his position on Iraq. It wasn't the liberal media that kept running with that distortion. Until you examine the distortions put out by the right honestly perhaps you won't have any legitimate criticism to be rebutted. As for Vets being angry at Kerry for what he said when he got back, I don't intend to offer a rebuttal for them. They are entitled to their feelings. A lot of what Kerry has said has been mischaracterized by the swifties, which has caused a lot of resentment from those that believe what they say. I think that a closer examination of ALL of what Kerry was saying at the time would smoothe over a lot of the resentment people feel.
To many of us, Kerry's protests after the war are as heroic as any actions he may have been involved in during his tour of duty. I know you would like to color Kerry's candidacy that way, but those of us who actually listen to him speak and who read what he has written have seen that he has much better plans and far more compelling ideas than anything the Bush people have ever put out. If you think that he's based his entire candidacy on on his four months there," then you haven't been listening to Kerry, you have been listening to pundits. And until you stop listening to Faux news and the garbage put out about Kerry by the RNC, you won't see that Kerry has a meaningful rebuttal in his plans for America. Kerry does have some problems, but his service to America in Vietnam and his noble efforts after the war are strengths, particularly when compared to Bush's actions in the same period.
Very well said. The problems that I hear people having with Kerry are based on distortions and lies told by the RNC and the Bush campaign.
and you'll vote accordingly. don't be surprised though that many people who were in the military then, and now, view his anti-war activities in a different light.
Especially when they are duped into believing that Kerry disparaged the ENTIRE military when the criticisms he made were addressed to the leadership, not the soldiers. That is the part that riles me, the distortions and lies. If you cannot win telling the truth, then you don't deserve to win at all.
how nice that you're not only able to think for yourself, but for others as well! i'm sure no vietnam vets are able to critically examine kerry's comments at the time (which are a matter of public record, no need for the swiftvet filter), and reach their own conclusions. how fortunate we are to have you to expose the lies of the right for us!
If you (or anyone) believes that Kerry disparaged the entire military with his comments, then I have no choice but to believe that you have been duped since a reading of Kerry's comments very clearly shows that he was commenting on the leadership, not the soldiers. I don't have any problem with people who read Kerry's comments (the entire thing, not the RNC soundbites) and find fault in them. I have a problem with the way that the RNC and Bush campaigns distort Kerry's words, record, and votes to suit their agenda.
Hey, before those of us who support the Democratic candidate jump all over basso here, for quoting this particular column, here's a little background on the fellow who wrote it. You may be surprised, if you don't regularly read the Post: ___ 2003 Pulitzer Prize ___ For Commentary Post Deputy Editorial Page Editor Colbert I. King won "for his against-the-grain columns that speak to people in power with ferocity and wisdom. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/kingcolbert/ And here's an example of a column some here might find good reading: Washington Post Origins of a Vitriolic Keynote Speaker By Colbert I. King Saturday, September 11, 2004; Page A21 The first and only time I was in the same room with Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) was a few years ago when he dropped by for coffee with The Post's editorial board. Even then the Georgia Democrat was in a royal snit over his party's direction, especially in the hands of Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe. Miller said he had supported a fellow Georgian and former Atlanta mayor, the late Maynard Jackson, for the top party post. Among his many complaints, Miller groused that McAuliffe couldn't match Jackson's political prowess or knowledge of the South. But it wasn't until recently that I discovered that in addition to our mutual admiration of Jackson, Atlanta's first African American mayor, Miller and I shared another experience. For that, let's back up several decades. The convention's keynote speaker accused the administration in power of being the "party of privilege and pillage," charged that it had a "sordid record of broken promises and unredeemed pledges," described its standard-bearer, the president of the United States, as "the most available front . . . for a discredited, defunct party" and denounced the vice president as the "Vice Hatchet Man" and the "most intemperate political individual in the history of modern American politics." The angry speaker, Frank G. Clement, governor of Tennessee and temporary chairman of the 1956 Democratic National Convention, was just getting warmed up. It was my first national convention, beamed into the King family living room by way of a black-and-white TV console. After Clement's oration, I went to bed thinking there was no way on earth that Democrats Adlai E. Stevenson of Illinois and Estes Kefauver of Tennessee could lose in November to Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Vice President Richard M. Nixon. I was 17 years old at the time. Little did I know how inconsequential a keynote address can be to the outcome of a presidential election. Clement, however, electrified the Democratic convention as much as he disgusted Republicans. His give 'em hell stump speech got the crowd pumped with lines such as: • "The Vice Hatchet Man slinging slander and spreading half-truths while the Top Man peers down the green fairways of indifference." • "The Republican Party is guilty of . . . aggravated assault and battery upon the political and economic bodies of the forgotten farm folk of America [and] corruption in high places involving an unprecedented spree of giveaways, grab and greed." • "The secretary of state himself . . . [was] unquestionably the greatest unguided missile in the history of American diplomacy." • "These money changers . . . have invaded and violated the people's temple of justice on Capitol Hill." • "Your lands are studded with the white skulls and crossbones of broken Republican promises." • "How long, O how long, America, shall we continue to condone the conduct of an administration that cuts back the strength and size of our military establishment . . . a cutback so severe that an army chief of staff has reported to us that he felt he had been called on to destroy rather than build a military establishment." Clement accused Eisenhower of "sitting nonchalantly by for four years . . . while a multitude of millions of citizens the world over were being beguiled by the smiles from Moscow and embraced by the godlessness of communism." Nearly 50 years later, Clement's speech is remembered with mixed feelings. Some recall it as the greatest in the history of Democratic conventions. But Ken Rudin of National Public Radio wrote in his June 16 online column that others think of the address as having been over the top and one of the worst in history, noting that "Red Smith, a New York sports writer, described Clement's speech as 'slaying the Republicans with the jawbone of an ass.' " So, to those who have taken to their beds with a case of the vapors because of Zell Miller's vitriolic GOP convention keynote address: Just remember Frank Clement's and rest assured that it only hurts for a little while. That said, Clement did have a profound impact on another viewer besides yours truly. In a 1998 feature by Sharron Hannon at the University of Georgia, Miller recounted the day his second son was born. "I was eaten up with politics, fascinated by it," he recalls, especially Southern orators. "Frank Clement, who was known as the 'boy governor' of Tennessee, was scheduled to give the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention that summer. The speech was to be at 8 p.m. and I couldn't wait to watch it on our little black-and-white TV." At 4 p.m. that day, as luck would have it, Shirley [Miller's wife] went into labor, wrote Hannon. Miller paced the hospital waiting room watching anxiously as the clock ticked past 5, 6 and 7 p.m. "Finally, I couldn't stand it and I slipped back to the apartment to watch the speech," Miller said. "When I got back to the hospital, Matthew had been born." The reasons for Miller's desertion of his own party's presidential nominee are another story. But oratorically speaking, see how Ol' Zell came by it? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13002-2004Sep10.html Look. The Democratic Convention was watched by this ardent Democrat with dismay. Not dismay over the superb speeches that never made it to the networks, and were not seen by most of the American people, but dismay that Kerry chose to tightly wrap himself with his Vietnam experiences, as if it mattered a wit. With all the issues he could have hammered George W. Bush on, for all of the disgusting record Bush has on so many issues, for all the broken promises made to the American people, for all the dishonest statements coming from Bush, Cheney and the leaders of his party, proven time and again, for all the monumental blunders Bush made leading up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the colossal failure to have a coherent post-war plan, for getting us in this optional, unnecessary war, and taking resources away from the search in the Afghan region for the monsters, and their supporters, responsible for 9/11, and so much else, Kerry chose to focus on Vietnam. The contrast between that convention, and the Republican one, full of lies and distortions, but focused like a laser beam on vilifying Kerry, is startling. Kerry is finally using people who know what they are doing in his campaign, but is it in time? I can tell you, this is one angry Democrat, and not all the anger is directed at the incompetent fool sitting in the Oval Office. Keep D&D Civil!!
thanks deck- i thought seriously about posting that graphic w/ the article, but wanted to see if posters would give the words themselves a chance, before leaping to the conclusion that this is another neocon conspiracy.
No thanks required. Oh, and I didn't post the graphic because King is Black... the column you posted makes that clear, to anyone who read it, but because he won a 2003 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, for the Washington Post. Just remember that the next time the Post get vilified as a tool of the Left... whoever the Left are. Keep D&D Civil!!
